But new wealth data from the Federal Reserve Surveys of Consumer Finance shows that the richest Americans actually held the same share of national wealth in 2007 that they did in 1998. The surveys show that the top 1% held 33.8% of the nation’s wealth in 2007. That compares with 33.9% in 1995. Their share is likely to have gone down in 2008, since they’re so heavily concentrated in investments.

(For those keeping score, you needed $8.272 million to get into the top 1% in 2007. To get into top 5% — the next rung down — you needed $1.87 million. And to make the third tier, or the top 10%, you needed $894,000. Net worth here is roughly defined as assets, including primary residence, minus liabilities and debts).

This is not to deny that the rich got richer. They did. Much richer. The wealth held by the top 1% ballooned to $21.8 trillion in 2007 from $18.4 trillion in 2004, adding $1 trillion a year in wealth.

Their incomes shot up even more. The richest 1% (by net worth) had $2 trillion in income in 2006, up from $1.5 trillion in 2003. While their share of national wealth remained flat over the decade, their share of income jumped to 21.4% from 17% in 1997.

So the rich have gotten richer (measured by income) than everyone else. But their growing share of incomes didn’t translate into a greater share of wealth. How is that possible?

This wealth-and-income puzzle is one I’ve been trying to solve for years. The most likely answer — though no one has proven it — is that the rich have been spending all that added income on McMansions, yachts, planes, Gucci bags, bottles of Mouton Rothschild and acc$300,000 watches that don’t tell time. Their money went to the burn rate, rather than to Their umulated wealth.

That may be consoling news to Schadenfreude seekers. But it’s a worrying sign for those who hope that the rich are sitting on the sidelines with loads of accumulated wealth, ready to lead us into recovery.